The 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 managed to improve performance without increasing front element size. Ditto for 300/2.8 and 400/2.8. I don't see why they'd have to do it with a 100-400. FWIW, comparison with ultrawides isn't valid, optical design is very different. As such there must be another reason for the increased size.

In theory, a 82 mm front element would allow 500 mm at f/6.3.

A 100-500/4-6.3 would be pretty exciting, and worth the high price tag if it performs at the long end.And yes it would autofocus even at f/6.3

Makes sense. Plus, looking at the data for the current 100-400mm, it doesn't have more than 1 stop of vignetting at any point, which isn't really an issue that needs correcting.

Personally, I'm fine if it does have an 82mm filter size, since I've got two other lenses which use it, so I've got a CPL and a 10-stop ND in that diameter. But I agree - there should be no need for it.

At least the patent confirms that it's an extending zoom design. I don't mind a ring zoom vs. push-pull (although I have no problem with the current design), but I would have a problem with an internal zoom for a new 100-400mm.

I got the 70-300L over the current 100-400L basically because of the new design, much better IS, and slightly better IQ in parts (although I would have been a lot better off with the extra 3-400mm in trade for more weight). I've used the pushpull and didn't mind it so badly, half the time I pushpull my 70-300L when I hold by the front barrel.But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?If the 100-400L mk2 is priced less than halfway between 70-300L and 70-200/2.8ISmk2, then the 70-300L may as well be dead...

I don't think it will kill off the 70-300L because:

1. The 70-300L is way smaller and lighter. A major reason people get 70-300L, or 70-300 IS non-L or 70-200 f/4 IS is because they want a small, light little lens that is a great walk-around and fine for travel where maybe do some serious shooting and then some snap shooting and then stop in for lunch at some cafe and then run around more for hours all day long. The small ones can even be tucked away in a cargo pants pocket if need be. The 100-400L is simply too large a lens to be a tiny little compact tele-zoom.

2. On APS-C I don't think it makes much difference and the starting at 100mm may even be just as well, but on FF I find the starting at 100mm instead of 70mm to be a big deal. I use a 70- lens as one of my main workhorse lenses in addition to just a little light travel zoom and I find that 70mm is often just wide enough for many short tele-landscape photos when using a FF body but 100mm just doesn't quite do it. If you use a 100- lens then you almost have to have some sort of 28-75/24-70/105 type zoom with you too and maybe need to do lots of lens swapping (and most of those can get a bit rough at the edges on FF) plus a high quality wider lens and then suddenly you are carrying three, sizable, lenses around at once.

3. If the 70- lens will be a main workhorse lens and not merely a little travel lens than you may want better quality than the 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC.

4. There is also the $1500 vs $2800 which is not an inconsiderable difference.

That said for a compact, full-on wildlife lens where you want some flexibility and not quite the weight or expense of the 300 2.8 and reach really matters then the 100-400 IS sounds pretty awesome. If you don't want or can't with the super-tele plus 70- lens pairing the 100-400 IS is the ideal safari-type lens too.

So just as, currently, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 100-400L have little to do with the 70-300L neither will the new 100-400L IMO (other than for a very few who got scared off the old IS and tech in the current 100-400L).

77mm would be more than enough (400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm), and bigger element increases both the price of the lens and of the required filters.

Perhaps because it retains f/4 a bit longer, maybe it has a touch less vignetting, maybe it makes it a bit easier to get decent corner performance without using even more fancy elements. I'm not really sure but guessing some mix of that sort of stuff.

The 70-300L also has an unusually large filter size for an f/4-f/5.6 70-300 lens.

Hopefully it is not simply a weight to avoid using more expensive fluorite whle they still charge fluorite prices and give us more weight though hah.

nowinaminute

I tried 4 copies of the 100-400mm but none were any good, one was sharp on the left side and soft on the right, another sharp at the bottom and not the top (!) and the other two were generally soft.

I gave up and got the 70-300mm and it was pin sharp first copy I tried!

Now I bet this new version of the 100-400mm will be the lens I always wanted but It looks like there is going to be a major price hike so I'll stick to what I have I think! Around 1K is the most I could justify spending, I'm not a wealthy man and it takes a LOT of saving and with a new baby it will be a long long time before such an indulgence would be possible again! Maybe one day when this lens has been around a while I will be able to sell my 70-300 and buy the new 100-400 without there being much price difference but it's going to be something to gaze at longingly for the foreseeable future!

I predict it will be a stunner, with even lenses like the lowly 55-250 giving great sharpness I can't imagine this being anything but borderline prime sharp.

It certainly can be better, but mine is pretty good. The attributes I like are the close focusing, and the small size when telescoped in. It fits nicely in my camera bag. The push pull doesn't bother me, but a twist zoom is better.

I'd be disappointed with one that had a 15 ft minimum focus distance, and was too long to easily put in my camera bag with my other lenses. Thats one of the reasons I don't like the 400mm f/5.6, its a great lens, but takes up too long of a storage space.

If they can keep it shorter like the 100-300mm L and have a similar close focus distance, I'd go for it. It likely would not accept TC's if it was configured like the 100-300L either.

Logged

richy

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

There is quite a bit of difference between lenses! The same differences occur with 300 2.8 lenses although it is tougher to get all the info as they are usually drop in filters. However, after looking at patents it is often the case that lenses are not actually the exact ratings advertised. Sometimes a f2.8 is a 2.9 or a 3.0, sometimes a 50mm is a 47 mm etc. Just as happens with motorcycle engines some rounding / wishful thinking / marketing occurs. Until canon release the lens (fingers crossed!) we won't know for sure. They could have increased the front element size just as sigma did with their 50mm, they could just be moving the filter thread further out to reduce the impact of using filters. Canon increased the front element size and filter size on their L versions of the 100 2.8 macro and the 70-300 over the non L versions. Both lenses improved image quality. Again, I do not design lenses but it seems like a modest increase does help! It is also not a huge increase, we arent talking 105mm screw in filters here so the costs arent insane. It would be a pita to have to carry an additional set of cpl and different rings for the nd grad system.

richy

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed.

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed.

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!

Thanks for the advice. I had heard that the 300 f4 IS worked well with the 1.4 TC and the 70-200 would take it also.